The drugs scourge which is ripping our nations youth apart is only being barely contained by this governments long standing stance of hard, merciless action against the purveyors of, and partakers in, this deadly ‘recreation’.
Recently, however, potheads eager for a way to legitimise their habit have, under the guise of ‘libertarianism’, infiltrated this policy with liberal attituides which are weakening our already wilting reserve and allowing the scourge of drugs to drag our society back down into the mire. The solution is NOT legalisation and liberalisation of drugs. The solution is the severe and merciless persecution of these substances, including marijuana, to reinforce the message that these substances, if not lethal in themselves (like marijuana), lead to more lethal substances later in life (ecstasy, heroin, cocaine). They precipitate a life of crime and are responsible for the radical increase in violence in our nations youth. They should be eradicated by a far more ruthless pursuit of the smugglers, dealers and users than has been undertaken so far. This is the only policy which will ensure victory against the war on drugs.
Why do I have the feeling that the OP has been written more for the purposes of drawing a reaction than anything else?
It’s definitely a rather unusual first post for a new poster.
It’s summer.
So, just because I write vehemently on a subject which arouses great passion in me, I’m not to be taken seriously? I assure you this is not the case. I am deadly serious about discussing this and am not out to waste anyone’s time (including my own).
BTW - Do you remember what you did with your first post?
Forgotten Joshie have we?
Well, I actually agree, but I expect that you’ve just called down the thunder and are about to reap the (puff) whirlwind.
So I’m going to duck before they begin dropping firebombs.
If you are deadly serious about discussing it, I’d suggest you start by providing some evidence for some of the opinions you present as fact.
e.g.
That’s an awful lot of hyperbole. Can you prove any of these points?
Oh, welcome to the boards, by the way!
“The drugs scourge which is ripping our nations youth apart …”
“…way to legitimise their habit …”
“The solution is NOT legalisation and liberalisation of drugs.”
I’m wondering…which nation? From your spelling of the above bolded words, I’m inferring that you’re either not in the United States or you have some sort of affectation going. While the principles can easily be debated (especially by the minds in here, many far stronger than mine), but knowing which country is going to hell in a handbasket due to “lax” drug laws might be helpful.
Hamadryad: check his/her location.
I’d guess that this OP is prompted by our recent reclassification of cannabis from a Class B drug to a Class C drug, with an associated relaxation in its policing (for personal use, anyway).
Alcohol. You forgot alcohol.
You might be taken more seriously if you didn’t start off on this board with an incoherent polemic filled with vague, unsubstantiated accusations that unnamed “liberals” are somehow responsible for problems of drug usage in the UK.
How does one go about “infiltrating a policy with liberal attitudes”, and what does “weakening our already wilting reserve” mean? How does one persecute a substance? What specific steps does the OP suggest in this “far more ruthless pursuit of smugglers, dealers and users”? Are we talking about state-sponsered executions here?
Finally, can the OP present evidence that drug usage is a greater societal problem in countries where soft drugs such as marijuana are not treated with the same severity as, say, crack cocaine?
Yep, the UK. Where the Grim Spectre of Anarchy is sitting grinning on every housetop even as I type. Any minute now, we’ll be descending into a strife-torn social wasteland like, I dunno, Holland or something.
Ok, the ‘potheads’ crack was hyperbole but the libertarian movement is heavily involved in damning our childrens futures so they can puff in peace. Just typing in “Libertarian Drugs Policy” into Google gives you pages and pages of pro-drug propaganda in the name of ‘civil liberties’.
This is the practise in many countries worldwide but perhaps one of the most succesful is Sweden where drug use is viewed as being completely beyond the pale. Influential British columnist Melanie Phillips’s article of 12th July covered the main points cogently enough. One relevant quote from the article was:
Quite a difference. This website details the policy a little more explicitely and proves that it is, in fact, a successful one.
This site backs up my statement.
The one area of Great Britain where they have tried decriminalising just one of these drugs (marijuana) resulted in an explosion of crack and heroin abuse in that area which has broughtg with it a rise in street crime. The main culprits are young. This article in The Guardian, a newspaper with very ‘progressive’ views on drugs’ backs up my point.
So, I’ve provided evidence for all four of the points you quoted Crusoe. Can you find any flaws in my reasoning?
Pot leads to heroin which leads to a life of crime, is that about it?
Now imagine pot is heavily regulated (but legal) and heroin is illegal but distributed to registered addicts.
While a pot smoker our hypothetical criminal can get treatment without fear of losing employment or being arrested. Each time our addict goes for heroin, treatment is available. Finally, of course, crime is not necessary to support a habit. At least in a system like this the police don’t have to spend half their time on drug crimes.
Anyone who thinks a war on drugs can be won is living in a fantasy world. Harm reduction is the only strategy which makes any sense.
Against my better jdgement, I’ll treat this as a serious post.
Deus I’d like to know just why drugs are a “scourge” that are “ripping our nations youth apart”.
For example I use drugs on a regular basis, as do most people I know. I drink - a recreational drug - at least a couple of times a week. To the best of my knowledge, despite your claim otherwise, there is no governmental “long standing stance of hard, merciless action against the purveyors of, and partakers in, this deadly ‘recreation’”
Or are drugs only bad if they are illegal? Perhaps you can explain to me why hash is more likely to “precipitate a life of crime” than beer, or worse for my health than cigarettes?
But mainly I’d like to know how you think the “war on drugs” has worked in any way, shape or form. The only people it’s benefitted are those who’ve made considerable money by importing a cheap to produce substance and reselling at massive profit, thanks to the supply/demand imbalance this policy has created. At the same time, it’s created massive costs to society, both the direct cost of fighting this “war”, and the secondary costs of increases in crime through addicts resorting to petty theft and worse to fund what should be an inexpensive habit.
I’d be interested in any single benefit you can prove from the current policy. Oh, and I do mean prove - more facts, less rhetoric, please.
“Sweden has a restrictive policy on drugs. This does not mean a repressive policy focusing exclusively on law enforcement measures.”
How does this support your thesis, “that severe and merciless persection of these substances” is “the only policy which will ensure victory”?
<gigantic forehead-smack>
I promise I used to do a great job on reading comprehension tests. I really, really did.
I think that the thing to do is figure out WHY so many people are trying drugs. It’s not just “because they’re there”…I’ve had Robitussin in the cabinet for years and I’ve never felt the need to see if chugging a bottle of it would get me wasted. Perhaps legalization could actually help with some of the underlying problems. If a substance is legal, I’d imagine more people would be willing to admit to using it, and are therefor more comfortable answering questions about or seeking treatment for their use.
Since I am typing this on my lunch break and have to return to work I will have to postpone involvement in this discussion until same time tomorrow. I hadn’t anticipated the amount of dissenting voices who require a response. Keep those replies coming and I’ll be back tomorrow.
The only policy that will “assure victory against the war on drugs” is to end it. I assume that’s not what you meant.
You really should work harder on editing your posts so that you don’t look like a rabid dog frothing about. Content errors aside, your screed is so rabid as to be difficult to take as anything other than sarcastic hyperbole.
From your link:
This is not exactly ground breaking stuff. It sounds like US policy except I would bet our mandatory sentences for drugs are a lot longer than the ones in Sweden. Sweden probably has more room in treatment.
Good luck with your burgeoning crack problem. You are going to need it. We have very long mandatory sentences for crack in the US. You may want to build some more prisons.
I’ve heard, several times, from professionals in the area of drug abuse, that the “gateway effect” of marijuana - the idea that marijuana use leads to the use of harder drugs - is nothing but scaremongering. A quick Google search turned up a few cites.
I’m not, myself, a marijuana user, or, indeed, all that much of a libertarian. But I’d rather have facts than misinformation, and the “gateway effect” seems to fall rather heavily into the second category.
The only way in which you can view marijuana as a gateway drug is so tenuous that, if applied logically, you should immediately ban alcohol and cigarettes, as there’s far greater proof that these:[ul]
[li]are far more common gateways other drug use than marijuana[/li][li]damage users health[/li][li]are responsible for increases in crime (alcohol fueled fights and vandalism, and cigarette trafficking)[/li][/ul]
Deus, can you argue with this?
Deus: unfortunately I too am fairly busy at work, so here’s the edited highlights of my response:
[ul][li]Saying that libertarians are behind changes in the UK’s policy on drugs and then pointing to libertarian websites does not constitute evidence that libertarians forced a change in the UK’s policy. Additionally, the latest cannabis-related MORI poll I could find suggests 50% support for decriminalisation–39% opposed–and in a separate question 73% support for access to cannabis (including 42% supporting unrestricted recreational use).[/li][li]The website you suggest regarding Swedish attitudes to drug use does not, as El_Kabong and Beagle have pointed out, suggest to me a highly repressive regime where drug use is ‘beyond the pale’. I am also not sure how Sweden compares to the UK in terms of general social attitudes and other factors that might influence levels of drug-taking. The conclusions the site draws suggest that Sweden has historically had unusually low numbers of takers of some types of drug. It also suggests that the drug-related mortality rate is rising and that experimental drug use is definitely on the rise. This does not constitute an unqualified success in my opinion, nor in that website’s.[/li]The same Swedish website claims that marijuana is not a gateway drug (second page, under the heading ‘soft drugs’). The conclusions it draws suggest correlation but not causation. The sum total of the evidence I have seen–which is admittedly not exhaustive–is at best inconclusive on this point.[/ul]